Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the members of the standing committee of the House of Commons.
My thanks also go to Ms. Christine Vincent, for she was the link between me and this respected committee.
I have the pleasure to say that this is my second time addressing a standing committee here. Four or five years ago I was introduced by the Honourable David Kilgour. That was before the war in Iraq, and I was working for the United Nations in the Middle East at that time.
I have handed out some information about myself, but I would like to say something about that. I just retired from the United Nations. My last position was in Sudan. I also worked with the United Nations for 17 years in their peacekeeping division. I was over almost all the world, in the field. For a short time I worked in New York. I was in Cambodia in 1991 and 1992. Then I was moved to South Africa for peace promotion and observation of the elections in 1994, which were the fairest multi-ethnic, multi-racial elections. I was in the northern part of South Africa, which was the most critical and dangerous area.
At that time I had the pleasure of knowing the Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Peter Milliken, who was there; the former Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, Christine Stewart; David Kilgour; and some other people.
I was also in Afghanistan twice. I saw two or three governments fall in Afghanistan. I spent three years in Afghanistan and was there again after the war for a while. I was in Iraq twice. I was in the Oil-for-Food Programme for three years, and then I was in the green zone after the war for three years. I was also in northern Ghana for resolution of conflict and to address the problem of proliferation of small arms. I was also a former member of parliament in Sudan for some time.
However, before going straight forward on Sudan, I would like to say that the eclipse of the multilateral world in the post-Cold War period brought us into a world of insecurity, instability, and terrorism, with financial and political problems that impacted not only the developing world, but the advanced world.
Sudan is the largest country in Africa and the richest in resources. It is a pioneering country in democracy in Africa. Sudan's independence was in 1956. Its first democracy was from 1956 to 1958. Then there was a military coup for two years, and then another democracy for less than four years. Then there was another military coup that stayed for 16 years. There were then three years of democracy, and then a military coup that has remained in Sudan for the past 21 years. That gives you an idea that Sudan has suffered over 40 years of military rule, compared to 11 years of democracy. Those 11 years were not straight.
Before the 40 years, until the late 1960s, Sudan was known for being a peaceful country, having good relations with its neighbours and with the international community. For the last 40 years exactly, from 1970 onward, we started to have problems.
Today Sudan is in a position to be or not to be the largest country in Africa. The reason is the continuous wars without United Nations attention at all--I say “at all” because I worked in the United Nations and I'm a Sudanese Canadian and I know what was going on there. The UN was not there at all.
However, for the last 20 years, the current regime has treated the south in a different way from previous military or civilian regimes. Wars between the south and the north started in 1953 and continued until 2005, with some periods of negotiation and reconciliation, especially the one in 1971. That stayed for 11 to 12 years, and then the military regime aborted it. People went to war until 1983, and then again until 2005, when the peace accord took place.
The major problem of the peace accord, or the CPA, as people say, was that it was not a United Nations peace accord. The United Nations had no role at all in the CPA. The CPA was influenced by the United States and some European countries.
Of course, political parties in Sudan, and all the Sudanese, agree that brothers in the south have the right to self-determination. But the way the CPA came about I think damaged the situation in Sudan.
Even if the south separates, there are questions about the relationship between the south and the north, let alone, of course, the situation in Sudan. Other secessions and separations might be in the pipeline. That is because of the way the CPA, or the Naivasha treaty, was made.
The regime in Sudan bears most of the blame with regard to this CPA, but I'm going to say that the United States also bears part of that blame. The international community, or the United Nations, as such--pre-Cold War, post-Cold War era--was for unity, especially with regard to nation states.
Nation states are composed of a variety of cultures, races, and everything. That's why the United Nations, according to the charter, has to maintain international peace and unity of states, not dismemberment of states. Unfortunately, we have come to an era, at the eclipse of the multilateral system, where we are now witnessing disintegration in some parts of the developing world.
In the case of Sudan, which is in Africa, it is the only exceptional case of secession taking place.
Eritrea separated, or actually Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia because it was not part of Ethiopia. Eritreans are different people.
Therefore, the issue of Sudan, I think, also might have some implications or ramifications for Africa, especially in neighbouring countries, such as Congo, Uganda, Kenya also, even Ethiopia--there are also minorities there--and even Chad, where the Arabs and others also have other problems.
So while several parts of the world are in the third millennium and are coming together, people are coming together and trying to unite, regrettably, the situation in Sudan, or in Africa, or in the largest countries of Africa, is one of dismemberment.